My Xbox LIVE doesn’t have the console-controlling functions of the Xbox Companion app, but it does offer gamers access to their Xbox LIVE account info, including game achievements, your 3-D avatar and friends management and messaging. In fact, if you don’t have a keyboard accessory for your Xbox controller, it makes chatting with friends, managing your friends list and setting Beacons, which alert you to when your friends want to do the same thing as you, much easier.

It’s actually a very handy little app, and it does a good imitation of Windows Phone 7 for people who haven’t experienced that platform’s interface yet. Sounds are taken straight from the Xbox itself, and despite a little lag when switching between some screens as the info is retrieved from Microsoft’s servers, it’s a pretty fun way to navigate content that’s kind of a chore to view on your console.

The app also includes a “Spotlight” section that presents you with video trailers and featurettes normally available through the console. It’s free, so if you’re an Xbox LIVE user, there’s no reason not to check it out.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015

The reason I suspect this news might not excite some is that the iPad currently has a number of very good Office-compatible document editing options from third-party developers. There’s QuickOffice, for instance, and Documents to Go. Both offer Word, PowerPoint and Excel file editing, creation and exporting abilities, and both perform well, coming from developers with a long history of doing document editing on mobile platforms. Then there’s Apple’s own iWork suite for iPad, which is also capable of handling Microsoft files via import.

A Microsoft solution would have the advantage of working natively with Office files in the way the company that created them intended, however. That would mean no minor formatting oddities to occasionally iron out when you shift back to Office, and maybe even tight, wireless integration with Office on the Mac or PC, as well as Office 365 on the web.

The Daily says the cost for official Office iPad apps would be somewhere around the $10 mark Apple currently charges for its iWork titles, which would be a refreshing change from the often high price tags found on its desktop offerings. But for me at least, an official Office app would have to be a lot better than the competition in terms of its mobile interface before I’d be willing to drop the third-party solutions. What about you?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout
• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft

We went hands-on with the new feature using the Skype for Mac 5.4 Beta to see if it’s as easy to use as the promotional video Skype released detailing it (warning: autoplays) makes it out to be. The answer, it turns out, is yes and no.

Setup you would expect from a beta

To set up the service, you need to tie your Facebook account to your Skype client through a simple authorization process, all of which takes place in the Skype app itself through the Skype Home screen. I had already done this using the last Skype beta for Mac, so I expected to be able to jump right in.

Not so fast. I found that in order to get my Facebook contacts to appear in Skype, I needed to disconnect my Facebook account and reconnect it, then quit and restart the program. After that, I had trouble getting the Skype beta client to recognize who was or wasn’t online. That required another quit and restart of the Skype application. It could be that this only happened because I was already using a previous beta; if you’re signing in with your Facebook credentials for the first time, you may have better luck.

Still, it’s important to keep in mind that this is prerelease software, so bugs are to be expected, and I eventually worked everything out in just a few minutes. Skype will likely iron out these kinks before a final release.

Calls are easy

Once you can see your Facebook contacts, making video calls to them is remarkably easy. Simply go to the Skype Contacts tab in the left-hand menu and navigate to the group of “online” folks. You could also navigate to the “Facebook” group, but video calls can only be made to Facebook users who are listed as online anyway, so it makes more sense to see only who is actually available.

I tried two calls to see how the service worked; the first, to my colleague Kevin C. Tofel, went off without a hitch, although Kevin said that there appeared to be a bit of delay as the Skype and Facebook services did their initial handshaking. Once connected, though, video and audio quality were both great, and there appeared to be no lag or delay on either end.

One caveat for calling that I discovered in my second attempt: If the Facebook contact you are trying to reach has not already installed the plug-in necessary to enable Facebook video chat, they will be prompted to do so. Luckily, it’s a relatively quick, painless process, and once my friend was set up, that call went just as well as the first one.

A good step toward centrally managed video communication

Adding Facebook video calling to Skype extends the service’s reach considerably, and it is another step toward simplifying Internet-based communication by tying people’s most frequently used accounts to one another. It means Skype users should have an easier time raising friends and family for video chat, and depending on how you use Facebook, it could make face-to-face professional communication easier, too.

While there hasn’t yet been any announcement regarding taking Skype’s Facebook integration to mobile devices, that would seem like a logical next step. It would help extend cross-platform potential for centralized video chat even further. According to our recent poll, Skype is a popular option among mobile video chatters, but if this Facebook integration makes its way to smartphones and tablets, too, that popularity could go through the roof.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• A 2011 NewNet Forecast
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content

For instance, Jobs told his biographer Walter Isaacson, “Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology,” and “He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas.”

Here’s how Gates responded in his Sunday interview on ABC’s This Week:

“Over the course of the 30 years we worked together, you know, he said a lot of very nice things about me and he said a lot of tough things. He faced, several times at Apple, the fact that their products were so premium priced that they literally might not stay in the marketplace. So the fact that we were succeeding with high-volume products, you know, including a range of prices, because of the way we worked with multiple companies, it’s tough. And so the fact that at various times, he felt beleaguered, he felt like he was the good guy and we were the bad guys, you know, very understandable.”

Gates seems to be referring to the Apple that Jobs returned to in 1997, when the company was 90 days from bankruptcy. Jobs eventually ended up making a deal with Microsoft to invest $150 million into the company directly as well as develop Microsoft software for the Mac, which was a  huge boon to the Mac platform. And that’s also probably was Gates was referring to earlier in the interview when he sort of took credit for creating the Mac: “Steve and I worked together creating the Mac, we had more people on it, did the key software for it,” he told Christiane Amanpour.

“We” is obviously Microsoft. And as previously mentioned, they did develop Office, Internet Explorer and other development tools for the Mac. But Jobs and possibly a few others at Apple might take exception at the “worked on creating the Mac” bit.

Even so, Gates reiterates his respect for Jobs despite the blunt quotes about him that Jobs gave to his biographer:

“I respect Steve. We got to work together, we spurred each other on even as competitors. None of that bothers me at all.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015
• Forecast: the evolution of the e-book market
• Themes for a connected world: GigaOM RoadMap review

Apple’s rise propelled it to eighth overall on the list, a spot occupied by Nokia last year. Nokia’s brand value suffered, causing it to fall four spots, to No. 14 on the list. Microsoft also fell (down three percent), and it is now ranked third, with an estimated value of $59 billion.

While seven of the top ten are tech companies, Coca-Cola still retains the No. 1 spot overall. Another fast riser in the rankings was Amazon, which saw its brand value climb 32 percent versus last year. It still has a ways to go to catch up to Apple, however, since it currently sits at 26th overall. We’ll see if the new Kindles can light a fire under that growth.

Interbrand’s methodology for the report involves looking at financial performance data, the role of the brand in purchase decisions and the overall strength of the brand (basically, its ability to continue to make lots of money).

Based on these measures, you can see why Apple would excel. The success of the iPad, iPad 2 and iPhone 4 during the past year are undeniable, and Apple’s Mac presence continues to demonstrate strong growth, as the company showed us on Tuesday during its iPhone 4S media event. It’s also worth noting that both Nintendo and Sony fell in the rankings, which could be a sign that Apple’s mobile gaming success (another thing it crowed about on Tuesday) is also helping to fuel its brand strength and erode that of others.

Despite a mixed reception to the iPhone 4S, I think we’ll see it continue to build Apple’s brand in the coming year. The 3GS was met with a somewhat similar reaction, and we all know how that turned out. What do you think? Will Apple ever take the Coca-Cola crown?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues
• Mobile Q4: The scramble for spectrum continues
• 2012: Data, spectrum and the race to LTE

The reason Apple devices and those using Google’s mobile OS will be able to stay dominant is because both have a significant platform advantage: the availability of software and content from development and publishing partners. It’s an advantage that In-Stat thinks will be insurmountable for competitors, and the recent cautionary tale of HP’s TouchPad seem to back that assumption up.

The TouchPad's multitasking was one of its strengths but ultimately couldn't save it.

While many were impressed with webOS, the mobile operating system powering the TouchPad, and not offended by the hardware itself (which did have more in common with the original iPad than the current model, despite competing for consumers’ dollars with the newer Apple device), third-party developer support was severely lacking when compared to the iOS and Android ecosystems.

In-Stat also predicts that the overall tablet market will grow to 250 million shipments by 2017, up from around 17 million in 2010. New devices from Apple, Motorola, LG and HTC will help spur that growth, according to the report, as well as new devices from BlackBerry. It’s that last one I’m not so sure about. RIM’s PlayBook isn’t doing so hot so far, and we’ve heard that carrier support is eroding for the device, at least in the U.S. In-Stat even acknowledges that “wireless operator business models could have a tremendous impact on future tablet demand,” and I agree; subsidies will help non-Apple devices catch up. If RIM is already being locked out in that regard for poor performance, it seems unlikely that new tablet designs from the BlackBerry maker could turn the tide.

The PlayBook is a 7-inch device, a form factor outnumbered among tablets by larger screens.

One final highlight from the In-Stat report: The company predicts 9- to 11-inch devices to rule the roost, with 56 percent of the tablet market. I agree that larger screens will continue to beat out smaller devices, but I question whether it will even be that close of a race. As of yet, 7-inch devices haven’t really proved their viability: Samsung’s Galaxy Tab is the best-selling example, and it still doesn’t seem to have come close to the iPad’s numbers, even if you count shipments instead of sales.

I fully agree with In-Stat that the tablet market will expand by leaps and bounds in the next few years, and I also agree that iOS and Android will lead that expansion. But I’m not sure that Android will make up as much of that expansion as In-Stat suggests. Google is beset on all sides by patent claims that call in to question Android’s future, and it has yet to release a solid version of its mobile OS that really stands up well on tablet hardware. One thing’s for sure: Apple has a seat at the head of the tablet table, and that’s a very good place to be, if recent trends are any indication.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The rise of tablets in the enterprise

1. Buying isn’t bonding

If you’re a big company like Google and you want to expand your reach, generally speaking you turn to acquisition to get the requisite skills and intellectual property. Apple does this, too. But improving a sub-feature of your mobile OS is a world apart from taking the two biggest parts of the smartphone equation (hardware and software) and mashing them together.

Apple has been doing both sides of the software/hardware coin for as long as it’s been making devices. The iPhone and iOS were born and grew up together. Apple doesn’t make a move on one without knowing how the other will be affected. Android is fully formed; it ships on devices as a consumer-ready product. Google can’t start from the ground up to create a device and software that are literally made for each other unless it wants to ditch Android entirely and go with something new to replace it.

2. Android will remain “open”

Android, unlike iOS, is designed to be device agnostic. Device-makers can customize it to some extent (by throwing custom software like Samsung’s TouchWiz or HTC’s Sense interface on top of it, for instance), but ultimately, these efforts all have to make compromises, which is why it takes so much more processor power to achieve an experience as smooth as you’d find on iOS. In order to make sure that Android continues to work well on other manufacturers’ hardware, Google will have to make compromises too, something former Engadget editor Nilay Patel hinted at on Twitter upon hearing the news.

Google has to make sure that it keeps Samsung, HTC and others happy, and that means not introducing device-specific features that give its own handsets an edge over the competition. Otherwise, the Android-maker runs the risk of sending its greatest asset (a healthy network of hardware partners) running into the arms of a rival like Microsoft. Having to consider the concerns of outside interests means that Android won’t likely be able to achieve the same level of symbiotic integration Apple’s iPhone/iOS combo enjoys.

3. It hasn’t worked for others

Maybe the biggest reason not to expect Google to be able to mimic Apple’s success with a unified platform is that others who’ve tried to approach the idea in a similar way haven’t be able to either. I’m thinking mainly of Hewlett-Packard, which purchased Palm and webOS to boost its mobile business a little over a year ago. Considering webOS had a tiny two percent U.S. smartphone market share according to Nielsen in a recent count, that’s not working out too well.

It’s also worth noting that the two smartphone companies who have had success with a unified platform approach are actually seeing their stars fall recently. I’m talking about Research In Motion and Nokia, which are both suffering big losses in market share on a global scale. Nokia’s attempts to curtail its losses actually include abandoning the unified approach with the Microsoft deal it announced earlier this year, and RIM is poking around in Android’s backyard to make up for its own deficiencies. Android, on the other hand, has seen exponential growth based on a strategy that, to date, hasn’t at all involved making its own hardware.

Money can’t buy platform happiness

Building a unified mobile platform that benefits from a tight reciprocal relationship between hardware and software isn’t something Google can buy. It’s still possible that it can make this work with time, since it has done fairly impressive things with even just with close hardware/software partnerships like the HTC Nexus One and the Samsung Nexus S, but matching Apple’s model isn’t a realistic near-term goal. I don’t think that’s necessarily Google’s end-game with this play anyway, since Motorola’s patent library seems a much more practical incentive. But if you’re expecting a Googlephone that somehow delivers a “perfect” Android experience, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Sony vs. Microsoft: Whose Mobile Gaming Strategy Will be Better?
• A Global Mobile Handset Platform Forecast, 2011 – 2015

Android and iOS combined represented a total of just under 62 percent of all worldwide smartphone sales in the second quarter of 2011, doubling the combined market share percentage of the Google and Apple smartphone platforms during the same period last year. Android and iOS were the only two major platforms that saw significant growth year over year, too. Nokia’s Symbian plummeted from 40.9 to 22.1 percent of global smartphone sales, while Research In Motion’s BlackBerry platform also stumbled from 18.7 to 11.7 percent. Microsoft didn’t fare well, either, falling from 4.9 to just 1.6 percent.

But taking a closer look at the combined Android and iOS 62 percent market share reveals that Google’s mobile OS, not Apple’s, is doing most of the heavy lifting. Android was the biggest gainer overall by a significant margin, growing from 17.2 to 43.4 percent of smartphone sales, while iOS showed more modest growth, going from 14.1 to 18.2 percent.

Still, Apple did more than double its total number of units shipped, from 8.7 million iPhones sold in the second quarter of 2010 to 19.6 million during the same time frame in 2011, even without a new hardware release. Apple also managed to climb to fourth overall in global mobile-device sales during the quarter, compared with a sixth-place ranking last year. Samsung, arguably Apple’s biggest competition in terms of hardware manufacturers, actually lost ground, falling 1.5 percentage points in worldwide handset sales year over year.

According to former Nokia executive and industry watcher Tomi Ahonen, who weighed in on the Gartner numbers on Thursday by combining them with sales data reported by major mobile manufacturers and other research firms like IDC, Apple is also on top of the heap when it comes to smartphone manufacturers, with 19 percent of market share for the second quarter of 2011. Ahonen also ranks iOS second in terms of overall operating system share, with 19 percent, edging out Nokia’s 16 percent. But even by Ahonen’s cumulative estimates, Android still has a dominant lead, with 41 percent of mobile OS share.

It’s easy to see this data point as yet another example of Android’s growing triumph over Apple in the smartphone battle, but that’s much too simplistic a view. Apple is still showing significant growth in worldwide smartphone sales, and it accounts for an increasing part of the device manufacturer picture. Android’s scattershot approach definitely has won it a presence in more markets at prices more affordable to a range of buyers, but Apple is still dominating the revenue picture. Also, some are beginning to think that Android might be poised to suffer a painful, drawn-out death by a thousand cuts from patent licensing issues, and Google’s recent decision to speak out against patent law seems to back that up.

Android may be doing most of the work when it comes to buoying the good ship smartphone, but Apple still seems to be plotting the course. As long as the growth of iOS stays positive and Apple keeps selling more and more hardware, the iPhone has nothing to fear from Android’s successes, in the same way the Mac line has nothing to fear from the PC industry it continues to be dwarfed by but also outpace.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A Global Mobile Handset Platform Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide

The story cites two people “with knowledge” of the auction, which is being run by two investment banks that Hulu hired to help negotiate a sale. That Apple could be considering Hulu isn’t exactly unique: Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T and Google have also been linked to the Disney/News Corp./NBC Universal joint venture.

The plus for Apple taking over Hulu would be the addition of a lot more content to beef up its iTunes and Apple TV offerings and present an alternative to Netflix. Apple has long been said to be working on its own subscription video service, but that has yet to come to fruition.

A big acquisition like Hulu would also be one way to quiet those on Wall Street who are begging Apple to get more value out of the cash it’s keeping around.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• TV Apps: Evolution from Novelty to Mainstream
• Connected Consumer Q1: The Over-the-Top vs. Pay TV Battle Heats Up
• Defining Hadoop: the Players, Technologies and Challenges of 2011

From Apple’s 10-Q filed with the SEC Wednesday:

On June 27, 2011, the Company, as part of a consortium, participated in the acquisition of Nortel’s patent portfolio for an overall purchase price of $4.5 billion, of which the Company’s contribution will be approximately $2.6 billion. This asset acquisition is subject to approval by various regulatory agencies.

Google may have lost out to the Apple-led consortium on Nortel, but it’s back on the hunt. It’s been reported that both Google and Apple are also interested in scooping up another collection of intellectual property up for sale, that of mobile-phone designer InterDigital.

It’s clear Apple is ready to play defense on its products, as COO Tim Cook warned Tuesday, “We want people to invent their own stuff. We’re going to make sure we defend our portfiolio from everyone.”

But bulking up on Nortel’s patents, and potentially InterDigital’s, shows Apple is prepared to go on the offensive too.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Robert S. Donovan

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A Global Mobile Handset Platform Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

For non-Premium users, there are some improvements that make it a worthwhile upgrade from version 5.1. For one, it seems to be a lot less buggy than previous versions, which for me frequently had trouble with landline calls and some freezing issues. The UI also boasts some small changes, like the ability to completely hide the sidebar menu to make it easier to focus on a single conversation. You can also now pop out video controls in a small hovering window when you interact with other applications or your desktop. This keeps the person you’re talking with on top and visible, and also allows you quick access to hang up and mute commands.

The changes should appeal to Skype power-users, and especially those Premium subscribers who use group calling for meetings and virtual conferences. The new screen-sharing options (limited to OS X for now) make video chat a whole lot more productive, and Skype still offers the best video chat quality of any of the various OS X options that I’ve seen. Our readers seem to agree, as more than half chose Skype as their Mac video chat client of choice in our recent poll. It’s nice to see that even after acquisition by Microsoft, Skype’s presence on other platforms isn’t being ignored, especially now that Google seems to be interested in making a big play in the group video chat market.

Unfortunately, the new UI Skype introduced in 5.0 and refined slightly in 5.1 remains largely unchanged. It’s still too big and obtrusive for an app that would be served better by being more inconspicuous. There are quite a few tutorials out there providing instructions for downgrading to the more simplified and minimalist Skype 2.8, and if you’re not a Premium user, this new version doesn’t really offer much incentive to upgrade. Since group calling and group screen sharing only require one Premium user to initiate, however, you might want to suck it up and make the switch, just so you can use the new features if a request to do so comes your way.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Case for Increased M&A in 2011: Actions and Outlooks
• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast

The real coup here is that Amazon has top-tier offerings from Microsoft and Adobe, including Office for Mac 2011 and Photoshop Elements 9. Amazon’s web store also has more current game offerings from major publishers, like Dragon Age 2, Civilization V and Sims Medieval. Game offerings on the Mac App Store tend to be older, and therefore compatible with a wider range of Mac computer hardware.

As with the Mac App Store, much of the user input required for installation is taken out of the process, making it remarkably easy for even beginner users to buy and use titles. Unlike the Mac App Store, though, Amazon’s offering is part of its existing website, and requires no software beyond a web browser to operate.

Titles you buy from the Mac Download Store remain available for unlimited re-download and installation through Amazon’s Games and Software Library, but the number of computers you can use the software on will vary depending on the software publisher’s preference. Downloads all include sizes, and download time estimates based on your connection.

Amazon is clearly interested in the idea of becoming a one-stop app shop for multiple platforms. It introduced its Amazon Appstore for Android devices earlier this year, and it already offers direct downloads for PC software and games. It’s a good time to be in the direct download business, since boxed software sales have been slipping for quite some time.

Apple seems to want to promote the Mac App Store as the preferred distribution method for some of its own software at least, so I wonder whether it will welcome a strong competitive model from Amazon. With its existing customer base and, I imagine, less particular restrictions about the software it offers for sale, Amazon will be an attractive choice for software publishers and developers, and it seems to have the backing of some big fish already.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• In Q3, E-books and White Spaces Ruled

The four companies join Amazon, which filed its own opposition to Apple’s two EU trademarks (“APP STORE” and “APPSTORE”) back in mid April. Amazon has also argued that the trademark is invalid in the U.S., after being sued by Apple for trademark infringement following the launch of its own Appstore for Android devices.

Microsoft also challenged Apple’s U.S. App Store trademark application back in January, so its filing in the EU doesn’t come as a surprise. Nor should the filings by Nokia, Sony Ericsson and HTC, all of which are competitors with Apple in the smartphone arena, and all of which benefit from the sale of apps on their hardware platforms.

Microsoft issued an official statement about the new round of complaint applications which sums up their position:

Microsoft and other leading technology companies are seeking to invalidate Apple’s trademark registration for ‘APP STORE’ and ‘APPSTORE’ because we believe that they should not have been granted because they both lack distinctiveness.

What the statement doesn’t reveal, and what’s actually behind all disputes over this term, is that the phrase “App Store” is worth a lot of money. Users and the media have gotten in the habit of calling mobile software “apps” and software marketplaces “app stores,” regardless of brand or platform. That’s due largely to the early spread of Apple’s own mobile applications store, which was the first to gain significant traction among smartphone users.

Apple clearly believes it has achieved distinctive with the App Store trademark by combining the more distinctive “App” with the generic “Store,” making for a combination that together meets the requirements of trademark law. A term must be distinctive (or refer specifically to the thing it applies to) in order to be eligible for trademark, unless it qualifies for acquired distinctiveness, in which case it acquires specific association through repeated use over many years.

I’ve argued before that Apple is right to defend this trademark, and right to have pursued it in the first place. If anything, this latest action only reinforces that belief. Why are some of Apple’s biggest competitors so eager to have the trademark invalidated if it doesn’t have an enormous amount of value? Also, why hasn’t Google, which runs the most successful App Store competitor, joined in with these proceedings? Because this is a case of sour grapes, and one that isn’t very likely to bear fruit.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A Global Mobile Handset Platform Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T

Microsoft, will, of course, most likely prioritize its own software and hardware when it comes to new Skype features and improvements. Redmond has already announced that it plans to bring Skype to Xbox and Kinect, Windows Phone 7 and other Windows devices, and that it will also be integrated with existing Microsoft communities like Lync, Outlook and Messenger. But Microsoft is also quick to note it will “continue to invest in and support Skype clients on non-Microsoft platforms.”

There’s plenty of reason to believe that isn’t just an empty statement. Microsoft might erode its existing Skype subscriber base by ignoring or closing down support for platforms where the service is popular, including Apple devices. And Microsoft has been good about creating and maintaining software for Apple hardware recently; Microsoft Office for Mac 2011 is a huge improvement over its predecessor, and finally brought Outlook to OS X. Microsoft also provides some interesting iOS products, like Photosynth, which it has yet to release on Windows Phone 7.

The company is clearly keen to capitalize on the opportunities provided by making its software available on competitor platforms, and much of Skype’s value lies in its ability to connect users across a wide variety of platforms. The whole reason I (and many others, I suspect) have a paid Skype account to begin with is that we know it’ll work with basically whatever hardware people I’m trying to contact happen to have. If Microsoft just wanted Skype’s tech in order to keep up with Google and Apple’s video communications tech, it would’ve bought a much cheaper video chat startup and saved itself a few billion dollars. Since it must want the network, too, it’ll keep up development on platforms other than its own.

And since Microsoft is planning to significantly expand the reach of Skype by building it into incredibly popular devices like the Kinect and Xbox, this deal should actually benefit Apple customers who are also Skype users. That’s because it’ll expand the potential user pool considerably, and make it that much more likely that the person you’re trying to reach through Skype for voice and video chat will have access to hardware that’s equipped for the task.

I use FaceTime and iChat for video calls between Macs on occasion, but I know just as many households with Xboxes and Kinects as I do ones with Macs or FaceTime-capable iOS devices. In theory, Skype’s expanded availability should just about double my potential iPhone and Mac video calling audience.

The update cycle for Skype’s Mac and iOS clients might suffer in comparison to their Windows counterparts as a result of this deal, but Microsoft won’t drop support entirely, and the VoIP service’s reach will increase considerably. It’s one more step towards making video chat usable and useful to more people, which is a good thing for those hoping video calling catches on.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• A Global Mobile Handset Platform Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• The Future of Workplaces

The iPad debuted last year and sold very well for a brand new class of device, beating all analyst expectations. The iPad 2 continues to dominate the tablet market; all the resulting revenue is additive for Apple, and so far hasn’t seemed to have cannibalized Mac revenue, as some suspected it would.

Apple’s total value, as measured by Millward Brown (which is based on “financial data combined with consumer measures of brand equity,” according to the company), is $153 billion, while Google’s is $112 billion. Rounding out the top five are IBM  at $101 billion, McDonald’s at $81 billion, and Microsoft at $78 billion. All experienced some growth in value during the year except for Google. Apple’s 84-percent rise easily outstripped that of any other company in the top 10 most valuable brands. McDonald’s was next closest, with a 23-percent increase in brand value.

Even if Apple continues to cede global smartphone market share to Google, which isn’t guaranteed to happen (Apple still has plenty of markets to expand to before it matches Android’s reach), its commanding lead in the consumer tablet sector will give it the ability to stay well ahead in brand value. And because Apple controls both hardware and software for its products, it has greater control over consumer perception of its brand, which has an effect on these rankings.

It’s worth noting, though, that the same study also found AT&T is the most valuable telecom brand. AT&T ranked seventh overall in the top 100, despite significant continued negative customer perception because of the company’s spotty coverage in major metropolitan areas like New York City and San Francisco.

While brand value may not always accurately reflect the experience of customers, it does provide an interesting picture of how companies that aren’t often compared to one another measure up. The top 10 brands, despite being from very different industries (with the exception of the many tech and telecom brands represented) are all ones whose logos most would instantly recognize. The only exception is likely China Mobile, which came in ninth and leads 12 Chinese brands among the top 100.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015

In a word, no. Bobbie Johnson argued in his piece that just combining two companies with flawed strategies does not necessarily mean that each will shore up the other’s weaknesses. That’s true, and it’s the weaknesses of both that left the path open for Apple to gain and keep its significant advantage in the high-end smartphone market. Here are the core advantages Apple’s mobile products have that Nokia and Microsoft playing nice simply won’t solve.

No Devs, No Dice

Windows Phone 7 has had some success attracting developers in the short-term, but there are indications this might have had more to do with grand gestures and publicity stunts, and less to do with the long-term viability of the OS’ app platform. In the very early days, prior to launch, Microsoft was said to be offering cash to potential devs to get them on board. And even as recently as November of last year, some were claiming Microsoft is offering comped devices to make WP7 development more appealing.

Despite a promising start, it’s not all roses for WP7 development. One successful (top 50) developer for the platform recently revealed his sales figures, and they were dismal. The revenue from the sale of his app was barely enough to keep the lights on, let alone build a business on.

Of course, Nokia, as the biggest smartphone maker in the world, should have a healthy developer pool to draw from. It should, but it doesn’t. Even before the move today, developers had been frustrated with Nokia’s development platform efforts. Now that the company is basically telling devs they should throw out what they’ve learned and switch to a completely different set of tools (since Nokia’s cross-platform Qt development framework isn’t part of its WP7 strategy), I wouldn’t be surprised if most just throw up their hands and move to a stable model with a proven ability to generate revenue, like iOS.

App Gap

The app gap is oft-cited as a prime reason behind Apple’s success, but it bears repeating. iOS currently has almost 350,000 active apps available to consumers through the App Store. Windows Phone 7 has about 8,000 apps. Even with a growth rate of 125 apps each day, Apple’s advantage at this point may be insurmountable. Each Apple iOS device averages more than 60 downloaded apps, and the App Store remains the top destination by a huge margin in terms of time spent browsing app marketplaces by consumers.

In terms of making users feel like they have a financial stake in a mobile platform, little else compares to apps. Changing platforms means buying all new apps, so if a platform is good at selling software, it’s more likely to result in subscriber lock-in or loyalty. Apple has the added advantage of offering multiple, non-phone platforms that also use and encourage the sale of apps (iPod touch and iPad), which adds to the perceived value of software purchases for consumers. Try as it might, Windows can’t gain purchase in the personal media player market, and WP7 doesn’t seem poised to make the jump to tablets anytime soon.

The Holistic Approach

Under the new arrangement between the two companies, Nokia builds hardware, and Microsoft builds software. Apple builds both. The advantage of having both hardware and software teams constantly working together to deliver the best possible consumer experience as a total product cannot be overemphasized. Any partnership between two companies, no matter how closely it may resemble an actual merger, isn’t one. Corporate cultures, offices and ultimate goals remain distinct. In this case, that’s especially true, since Microsoft announced this was a non-exclusive deal, and it would still be working with other hardware partners (though their history of doing so isn’t exactly encouraging).

Apple’s ability to pair the hardware and software development sides of making a smartphone not only allow it to win the UX game, but also advantageously affects cost and the pace of breakthroughs and advances, and downplays the importance of internal specifications. It’s why an iPhone that’s almost a year old can still compete with just-released hardware from competitors in terms of real-world performance, and it’s a big part of why Apple enjoys the high margins that it does on the sale of each piece of hardware it makes.

Because Nokia and Microsoft aren’t starting from scratch, it’s most likely that the partnership will bear all the earmarks of success, at least from the outset. If they do it right, we’ll see the simultaneous release of a bunch of shiny new handsets sporting WP7, and these will be decently well-received by Nokia’s existing customer base. But without significant changes from either camp in the way they think about how to make phones and software, Apple doesn’t have to worry about being knocked off its rock just yet.

Related research from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Mobile App Developer Survey: Profiles, Platforms and Monetization
• 5 Mobile Companies to Watch in 2011